If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

How big of an impact can an API/ABI change for just cursor behavior be for NVidia to start bitching about it? I mean, the article makes it look like it was only a function or two that changes the way cursors are handled (and doesn't make it sound like a dramatic change). Surely that shouldn't be too much of a big thing for a company like NVidia...

Also, while a frozen API/ABI is important, I'd much rather not have my cursor randomly disappearing, thank you very much :P

Comment

Surely that shouldn't be too much of a big thing for a company like NVidia...

It's a big thing precisely for a large company like NVidia, where a release is more work than commiting a fix, tagging it and uploading a tarball - all that pesky QA gets in the way. That being said, if their QA doesn't have a shortpath for minor but important bugfixes like these, then I'm not sure their complaints are valid.

? Shouldn't that only be a "change one if/else statement and recompile", especially when they aren't affected by the cursor bug? Don't they need to go through the QA again cause of said cursor bug anyway?

? Shouldn't that only be a "change one if/else statement and recompile", especially when they aren't affected by the cursor bug? Don't they need to go through the QA again cause of said cursor bug anyway?

Comment

there is no need for qa in that case, cause even if the abi changes, when you compile xorg/mesa it's all ready and done. Open source drivers do not suffer from abi breakage/api breakage, cause the necessary changes are made alongside the api/abi at the same time, instead the binary blob needs constant catching up.